Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature.
de Graeff, Nienke; Jongsma, Karin R; Johnston, Josephine; Hartley, Sarah; Bredenoord, Annelien L.
Afiliación
  • de Graeff N; 1 Department of Medical Humanities, Julius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht/Utrecht University , PO Box 85500, Utrecht, GA 3508 , The Netherlands.
  • Jongsma KR; 1 Department of Medical Humanities, Julius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht/Utrecht University , PO Box 85500, Utrecht, GA 3508 , The Netherlands.
  • Johnston J; 2 Research Department, The Hastings Center , 21 Malcolm Gordon Road, Garrison, NY 10524 , USA.
  • Hartley S; 3 The University of Exeter Business School, University of Exeter , Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4PU , UK.
  • Bredenoord AL; 1 Department of Medical Humanities, Julius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht/Utrecht University , PO Box 85500, Utrecht, GA 3508 , The Netherlands.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci ; 374(1772): 20180106, 2019 05 13.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30905297
ABSTRACT
In recent years, new genome editing technologies have emerged that can edit the genome of non-human animals with progressively increasing efficiency. Despite ongoing academic debate about the ethical implications of these technologies, no comprehensive overview of this debate exists. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature for and against the development and use of genome editing technologies in animals. Most included articles were written by academics from the biomedical or animal sciences. The reported reasons related to seven themes human health, efficiency, risks and uncertainty, animal welfare, animal dignity, environmental considerations and public acceptability. Our findings illuminate several key considerations about the academic debate, including a low disciplinary diversity in the contributing academics, a scarcity of systematic comparisons of potential consequences of using these technologies, an underrepresentation of animal interests, and a disjunction between the public and academic debate on this topic. As such, this article can be considered a call for a broad range of academics to get increasingly involved in the discussion about genome editing, to incorporate animal interests and systematic comparisons, and to further discuss the aims and methods of public involvement. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The ecology and evolution of prokaryotic CRISPR-Cas adaptive immune systems'.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Sistemas CRISPR-Cas / Edición Génica Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Aspecto: Ethics Límite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Sistemas CRISPR-Cas / Edición Génica Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Aspecto: Ethics Límite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos
...